Very Light Rail stock ordered for passenger trials

[YorkRailFan]

UK: Leasing company Eversholt Rail has awarded Transport Design International contracts to build three pre-series battery-powered Revolution Very Light Rail railcars for trial passenger operation.

This follows successful tests with a diesel-battery hybrid RVLR demonstrator vehicle at Ironbridge over the past two years.

RVLR is being developed with support from Innovate UK as a lightweight vehicle which would enable the low-cost implementation and operation of passenger services on routes where more traditional operations are not financially viable.


TDI is to invest in a new manufacturing facility in the Midlands where it will assemble the railcars from 2024, and it is developing in-service charging technology to enable battery-only operation.

The three RVLR cars are expected to be ready for passenger operation in 2026.

Eversholt and TDI said some major rail operators are already showing interest, and work is underway to agree routes for trials. These would then produce real-world passenger demand data to support business cases for long-term deployment and provide feedback on the RVLR design and capabilities.

‘This substantial further investment by Eversholt Rail demonstrates our commitment to delivering innovative, sustainable and attractive new rail products for the UK market’, said Eversholt CEO Mary Kenny when the order was announced on December 7.


TDI Chairman Sam Wauchope said RVLR is a ‘groundbreaking product that will modernise lower-density parts of the UK rail network with an environmentally sustainable and economic solution’.

Revolution Very Light Rail vehicles ordered for passenger trials

UK: Leasing company Eversholt Rail has awarded Transport Design International contracts to build three pre-series battery-powered Revolution Very Light Rail railcars for trial passenger operation. This follows successful tests with a diesel-battery hybrid RVLR demonstrator vehicle at Ironbridge...

www.railwaygazette.com

I'll be interested to see where these are tested and who may operate them. Warning speculation on my part, I think these could end up going to WMR as a replacement for the 139s, but once again I'm just speculating.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My speculation would also be Stourbridge. The PPMs are getting old and knackered, and it's totally self-contained so them sitting down won't get in the way of anything else.

 

[ExRes]

My speculation would also be Stourbridge. The PPMs are getting old and knackered, and it's totally self-contained so them sitting down won't get in the way of anything else.

Aren't they the additional stock for Cross Country?

 

[AlastairFraser]

My speculation would also be Stourbridge. The PPMs are getting old and knackered, and it's totally self-contained so them sitting down won't get in the way of anything else.

I wonder if they'd be suitable for lines like Axminster - Lyme Regis.
The formation is mostly intact, light axle loads makes them suitable for structures like Cannington Viaduct, and the top speed is 62mph, so they wouldn't be awfully slow.
Alternatively Calstock - Gunnislake, if Bere Alston - Tavistock gets opened.

 

[Grecian 1998]

I wonder if they'd be suitable for lines like Axminster - Lyme Regis.
The formation is mostly intact, light axle loads makes them suitable for structures like Cannington Viaduct, and the top speed is 62mph, so they wouldn't be awfully slow.

The chances of Cannington Viaduct ever seeing a train are basically zero. The original line was a light railway precisely because of the condition of the viaduct, so was restricted to 25mph.

You'd also have to rebuild bridges over the main line and the A358. Additionally you'd have the original problem that Lyme Regis station is not only nowhere near either the town centre or seafront, but is a long way above them.

If it was ever decided to reconnect Lyme by rail, you may as well build an entirely new line mostly in tunnel emerging by the Cobb (given the sheer lack of level space in the town centre for a station). Not as interesting, but much more useful.


Back OT, I agree Stourbridge is the most likely. Any route they work on would have to be almost entirely self-contained, suitable for lightweight vehicles, and somewhere where it would be easy to fuel and maintain them. Doesn't appear to leave too many options.

 

[Bald Rick]

I wonder if they'd be suitable for lines like Axminster - Lyme Regis.
The formation is mostly intact, light axle loads makes them suitable for structures like Cannington Viaduct, and the top speed is 62mph, so they wouldn't be awfully slow.
Alternatively Calstock - Gunnislake, if Bere Alston - Tavistock gets opened.

They wont be for any new or reopened line.

 

[Energy]

Never really understood these, the number of services on heavy rail lines which justify their existence but rolling stock only this big must be small.

My speculation would also be Stourbridge. The PPMs are getting old and knackered, and it's totally self-contained so them sitting down won't get in the way of anything else.

I'd hope that by the time they need replacement, the trams would have finally reached Stourbridge Town.

 

[Russel]

If they end up in Stourbridge, they would also be a welcome capacity boost, given they look a little bigger than the 139s, which can be somewhat cosy at times.

 

[AlastairFraser]

They wont be for any new or reopened line.

Then what is their point?

The chances of Cannington Viaduct ever seeing a train are basically zero. The original line was a light railway precisely because of the condition of the viaduct, so was restricted to 25mph.

You'd also have to rebuild bridges over the main line and the A358. Additionally you'd have the original problem that Lyme Regis station is not only nowhere near either the town centre or seafront, but is a long way above them.

If it was ever decided to reconnect Lyme by rail, you may as well build an entirely new line mostly in tunnel emerging by the Cobb (given the sheer lack of level space in the town centre for a station). Not as interesting, but much more useful.


Back OT, I agree Stourbridge is the most likely. Any route they work on would have to be almost entirely self-contained, suitable for lightweight vehicles, and somewhere where it would be easy to fuel and maintain them. Doesn't appear to leave too many options.

Well, 25mph for half a mile wouldn't be terrible.
The issue being the A35/A3052 through the area is very heavily congested, and the former railway to Bridport connected to somewhere useless for connections, so this is an option to reduce congestion in the area.

 

[edwin_m]

Then what is their point?

The justification for the Parry vehicle at Stourbridge was that even buying two of them was a lot cheaper than leasing a class 153. The low top speed didn't matter on such a short journey and the service was so frequent that the low capacity wasn't too much of an issue either. The Revolution VLR has a better speed and capacity so should be more widely useful for existing routes, but still limited by not being able to share track with other trains without some sort of special measures.

They might also be suitable for some re-opened routes, but there are no suitable ones in prospect at present. Vehicle size becomes a problem again here - if the demand is low enough to be satisfied by a train with capacity for only 50 people or so, then it becomes difficult to make the case to spend a lot of money on reinstatement.

 

[CdBrux]

I thought the idea was based around using them for trams and trying to avoid the costly need to have to divert every utility in the road as with the reduced weight the risk of damage to said utility was sufficiently reduced. So really to open up new tram possibilities rather than anything on the existing heavy rail network

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought the idea was based around using them for trams and trying to avoid the costly need to have to divert every utility in the road as with the reduced weight the risk of damage to said utility was sufficiently reduced. So really to open up new tram possibilities rather than anything on the existing heavy rail network

It was. But we're at trial stage and WMT are already looking for replacements for the PPMs as they're getting worn out.

 

[CdBrux]

It was. But we're at trial stage and WMT are already looking for replacements for the PPMs as they're getting worn out.

Ah ok, so that could be a trial, but if success main use would still be as I described? Would make a lot of sense to trial on already existing infrastructure

 

[edwin_m]

I thought the idea was based around using them for trams and trying to avoid the costly need to have to divert every utility in the road as with the reduced weight the risk of damage to said utility was sufficiently reduced. So really to open up new tram possibilities rather than anything on the existing heavy rail network

There are two separate vehicle designs from the same people. This thread appears to relate to the Revolution VLR, which is designed for heavy rail routes. There is also the VLR tram, intended for street running and ultimately autonomous operation, as expected to be supplied for Coventry.

 

[HSTEd]

This sort of project will be as much about getting Revolution a scheme they can point to when hawking the VLR tram as anything else.
I imagine Eversholt got a good price.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The justification for the Parry vehicle at Stourbridge was that even buying two of them was a lot cheaper than leasing a class 153. The low top speed didn't matter on such a short journey and the service was so frequent that the low capacity wasn't too much of an issue either. The Revolution VLR has a better speed and capacity so should be more widely useful for existing routes, but still limited by not being able to share track with other trains without some sort of special measures.

They might also be suitable for some re-opened routes, but there are no suitable ones in prospect at present. Vehicle size becomes a problem again here - if the demand is low enough to be satisfied by a train with capacity for only 50 people or so, then it becomes difficult to make the case to spend a lot of money on reinstatement.

I can understand the Parry vehicle, but as you said, to use the Revolution VLR, the rail authorities have to implement special measures to operate in mixed traffic, which kind of defeats the point unless they are used for isolated reopenings that don't see any other type of unit.

 

[edwin_m]

I can understand the Parry vehicle, but as you said, to use the Revolution VLR, the rail authorities have to implement special measures to operate in mixed traffic, which kind of defeats the point unless they are used for isolated reopenings that don't see any other type of unit.

To be fair, the special measures might be relatively simple, such as collaring the down loop at Brockenhurst out of use when a VLR is operating the Lymington branch, to eliminate any sharing of track with main line trains. To be clear, this is hypothetical, I have no inside knowledge of VLR being proposed for Lymington or anywhere else. Another special measure option might be to have wider fitment of TPWS or even ETCS in areas where VLR and other trains might use the same track. The same measures would have been applicable to any use of the Parry vehicle, with the additional difficulty that it's small size and low speed made it unsuitable for most routes, and trying to fit and get safety approval for TPWS on a Parry design might have been interesting.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

On the face of it the self-contained Liskeard to Looe branch would seem to be a good candidate , but the big negative surely is that it would require its own dedicated depot and facilities if it is unable to run on the main-line. (The L & L shed at Moorswater has long disappeared under the A38!). It also has a broadly hourly service with a 25-30 min running time each way so there is precious little time for recharging.

 

[HSTEd]

On the face of it the self-contained Liskeard to Looe branch would seem to be a good candidate , but the big negative surely is that it would require its own dedicated depot and facilities if it is unable to run on the main-line. (The L & L shed at Moorswater has long disappeared under the A38!). It also has a broadly hourly service with a 25-30 min running time each way so there is precious little time for recharging.

You could probably keep a second unit stacked north of Coombe Junction Halt for recharging.

 

[Chester1]

On the face of it the self-contained Liskeard to Looe branch would seem to be a good candidate , but the big negative surely is that it would require its own dedicated depot and facilities if it is unable to run on the main-line. (The L & L shed at Moorswater has long disappeared under the A38!). It also has a broadly hourly service with a 25-30 min running time each way so there is precious little time for recharging.

They might be able to run ECS outside of branch lines under some sort of new procedure e.g. an extra signal block of protection.

 

[edwin_m]

On the face of it the self-contained Liskeard to Looe branch would seem to be a good candidate , but the big negative surely is that it would require its own dedicated depot and facilities if it is unable to run on the main-line. (The L & L shed at Moorswater has long disappeared under the A38!). It also has a broadly hourly service with a 25-30 min running time each way so there is precious little time for recharging.

Indeed. The Vivarail train was claimed to be maintainable "in the field" by doing things like replacing an engine module with a forklift.
Stourbridge has a mini-facility on the stub end at the Junction, and I assume the vehicle would go by road to the nearby Parry works for any more serious attention. If running on the main line is also impossible, or difficult without making some complicated arrangements, then the conventional fleet still needs to provide cover for units under maintenance or failed. It probably isn't economic to provide a spare unit on each branch, and to do so might need extra trackwork to be laid to allow the two to be swapped over.

 

[AlastairFraser]

To be fair, the special measures might be relatively simple, such as collaring the down loop at Brockenhurst out of use when a VLR is operating the Lymington branch, to eliminate any sharing of track with main line trains. To be clear, this is hypothetical, I have no inside knowledge of VLR being proposed for Lymington or anywhere else. Another special measure option might be to have wider fitment of TPWS or even ETCS in areas where VLR and other trains might use the same track. The same measures would have been applicable to any use of the Parry vehicle, with the additional difficulty that it's small size and low speed made it unsuitable for most routes, and trying to fit and get safety approval for TPWS on a Parry design might have been interesting.

Still, it seems a golden opportunity for a more isolated reopening that wouldn't stack up with traditional units to prove their use.

 

[zwk500]

Still, it seems a golden opportunity for a more isolated reopening that wouldn't stack up with traditional units to prove their use.

Very few (in the region of 0) proposals are going to see the BCR tip into an approvable number purely because of slightly cheaper rolling stock. Especially as the VLR is extremely unlikely to see much lower staff costs other than DOO.

 

[JonathanH]

Especially as the VLR is extremely unlikely to see much lower staff costs other than DOO.

It is noticeable that even the Stourbridge PPM doesn't run DOO, and any substantial staff cost saving would be even more unlikely on paytrain lines.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Very few (in the region of 0) proposals are going to see the BCR tip into an approvable number purely because of slightly cheaper rolling stock. Especially as the VLR is extremely unlikely to see much lower staff costs other than DOO.

What about lighter Permanent Way standards?

 

[zwk500]

What about lighter Permanent Way standards?

Depends how much lighter, but I'd be very surprised if it was enough to suddenly turn no-hopers to viable construction schemes. The VLR might come in handy for freight lines to run a trial service, but in general to justify constructing a line it would need to be busy enough that a VLR wouldn't cope. Hence why it is most likely to focus on lowering operating costs for existing lines. North Lincs may see a few of them, if they can still operate in between main line trains.

 

[Bald Rick]

Then what is their point?

It‘s a very good question, to which I have never seen an answer.

Unless perhaps this is at the cutting edge of innovation in guided transport, and the rest of the world is wrong.

 

[Bornin1980s]

A new manufacturing facility? Is this the start of a new all-British manufacturer?

 

[Energy]

A new manufacturing facility? Is this the start of a new all-British manufacturer?

Not much point if they don't get many orders...

The PPM wasn't much of a success and its difficult to see why this would be any different.

 

[AlastairFraser]

It‘s a very good question, to which I have never seen an answer.

Unless perhaps this is at the cutting edge of innovation in guided transport, and the rest of the world is wrong.

Well, there are some isolated use cases I've just thought of - I believe Bradford MBC have got some funding for a commuter service on the Worth Valley alongside the heritage services, Revolution VLR may be suitable for that kind of service.